message in Christianity

[NoName55]

Jesus said He and the Father are one.

when my son agrees with me on something and says to someone. my father and I are one (regarding any matter) that makes trinity? ok, I shall bid you goodnight, I'm out

 

[don532]

Jesus said He and the Father are one.

when my son agrees with me on something and says to someone. my father and I are one (regarding any matter) that makes trinity? ok, I shall bid you goodnight, I'm out

I see your point.
To interject some humor, your son agrees with you? Help me with my teenagers!
Peace.

 

[don532]

Jesus said He and the Father are one.

when my son agrees with me on something and says to someone. my father and I are one (regarding any matter) that makes trinity? ok, I shall bid you goodnight, I'm out

I thought I should share further rather than risk someone thinking I was making light of the subject.

The Greek word used by Jesus in John 10:30 when he says He is one with the Father, according to my Bible, is neuter, or "one thing". The two are one in essence or nature, but not identical persons.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Jesus said He and the Father are one.

when my son agrees with me on something and says to someone. my father and I are one (regarding any matter) that makes trinity? ok, I shall bid you goodnight, I'm out

But that is not the way in which Jesus meant that to be taken. Nor did those who were there when he said it understand it that way. For if the had, they would not have been upset with what he had said. Just like if your son speaks that way with you in the middle of your masjed, no one accuses your son of violating the tenets of Islam. But look at what happened when Jesus spoke that way:

We have the verse under discussion, Jesus speaks, "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)

And immediately after that, look what the Jews do. "Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him." (John 10:31). Now why were the Jews going to stone Jesus. Was it because he was referring to being one with the Father in the same way your son might refer to being one with you, as you say "regarding any matter"? No. If this was the meaning/understanding of his words, there would have been no reason to stone him. But they prepare to stone him, and we are told why, because Jesus even asked them why:

Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" (John 10:32)

And they answered: "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." (John 10:33)

I do not believe it could be any clearer. This is the meaning that those present got from what Jesus had said. Jesus had said that he was one with the Father, and the Jews understood that to be equivalent to Jesus claiming to be God.

You may deny that he was God, the Jews certainly did. But you cannot deny that he claimed to be God, for he made it clear that this is indeed what he was claiming, both here in John 10, and also previously:

John 8
42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. 43Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say....
58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" 59At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

 

[NoName55]

But that is not the way in which Jesus meant that to be taken. Nor did those who were there when he said it understand it that way. For if the had, they would not have been upset with what he had said. Just like if your son speaks that way with you in the middle of your masjed, no one accuses your son of violating the tenets of Islam. But look at what happened when Jesus spoke that way:

We have the verse under discussion, Jesus speaks, "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)

And immediately after that, look what the Jews do. "Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him." (John 10:31). Now why were the Jews going to stone Jesus. Was it because he was referring to being one with the Father in the same way your son might refer to being one with you, as you say "regarding any matter"? No. If this was the meaning/understanding of his words, there would have been no reason to stone him. But they prepare to stone him, and we are told why, because Jesus even asked them why:

Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" (John 10:32)

And they answered: "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." (John 10:33)

I do not believe it could be any clearer. This is the meaning that those present got from what Jesus had said. Jesus had said that he was one with the Father, and the Jews understood that to be equivalent to Jesus claiming to be God.

You may deny that he was God, the Jews certainly did. But you cannot deny that he claimed to be God, for he made it clear that this is indeed what he was claiming, both here in John 10, and also previously:

okey dokey then was he kidding when he talked of father as some other personage or am I too senile to get it?

the Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."

25Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.

or was he role hopping, back and forth

 

[Grace Seeker]

okey dokey then was he kidding when he talked of father as some other personage or am I too senile to get it?

Not to be insutling, but if you don't get that Jesus really did make a claim to be God, and was understood to have very clearly done so, then maybe you are.

Again, I'm not saying you have to agree that Jesus was right in that belief (though personally I believe he was). Maybe he was a lunatic. But a simple objective reading of the texts show us that Jesus really did claim that he was God, and others also understood him to be making that claim.

That or do what so many Muslims do, just throw the whole New Testament away as not recording the truth with regard to Jesus to begin with. Then it doesn't really matter what he says in its text.

 

[Eesa Abdullah]

I am not a great scholar, but we see in John chapter 10:

The Jews gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly."

25Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one."

So, in the Bible, Jesus said He and the Father are one. One can to go to bible.com and search on holy spirit to see all the references to the holy spirit filling people, causing Mary to be with child, people being baptized with the holy spirit, speaking against the holy spirit is a sin, speaking for people, revealing things to people, giving joy, being sent by God, encouraging people, etc.

I think these things direct Christians to the trinity concept.

Greetings Don
audhu billah minashshaytaanir rajim

bismillahir rahmanir rahim


I do not believe that the Jewish Bible points to the Trinitarian concept, nor does the NT. The Bible is full of symbolic language and of course many things are ambiguous. However, the verse that you quoted from John.

John 10:30-33 30 "I and my Father are one.
Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

John 10:34-36 "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"

Please note that Jesus did not claim to be God, God the Son or the Son God. Claiming to be the SOn of God does not constitute blasphemy in Judaism. Jesus was mentioning the verse in Psalms:

Psalms 82.6 "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Lastly, the I and my Father are one verse needs to be interpreted in context with John 17:21-23 (NIV)

that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me.

waAllaahu alim

 

[Umar001]

Is what you posted a "message"? There are all different types of messages. It really is more the telling of a story -- a generations long story that we are actually participants in. It is not the presentation of a bunch of facts to be learned, as if learning them accomplished anything. It is more like a love letter, invited us to be in an eternal an monogamous relationship with God.

Lol the most easy question ever has turned out to be a handful? Lol.

Fine, you want the message of Christianity, here it is:

Jesus, himself, is the message of the Christian faith.

Given that Jesus is the message, your other questions as to what makes the most sense to us human beings is really irrelevant. If we were trying to create religion to please and make sense to the minds of man it would be important. But that is not what we are about. We are trying to present the truth as revealed to us, and that is that Jesus is indeed fully God/fully human, that humans are creatures fallen from divine grace unable to reach God on their own merit, but that the atoning sacrifice of Christ on the cross is credited to those who believe in him so that God the Father views us with the righteousness of his Son who takes our sins upon himself and then cancells them out.

Well Jesus might have been the Message, but also the Messenger, what ever he spoke was what God told him, thus relaying the Message, preaching the Gospel.

I think this should help answer # 2.
THIS is coming out of The Old Testament - Isaiah: 53: 3-6

Howdy Iwant2no2,

Hope you get to see this, but I was just going to say that the jews believe in that too yet they have a totally different view on it. How would you reconcile the two views?

I do not think that it has changed, other than minor copyists errors since its completion toward the end of the apostolic age. But, I do recognize that it took about another 100 years before all the churches were in consensus as to which of the various independent writings (there was nothing in book form) in circulation amongst the church were appropriately called scripture. (This by the way would have been nearly a century before Nicea, which many people mistakenly think determined the books of the Bible.)

Grace, so you dont think 1 John 5:7 is a change? Or is that a copiest error? I'd also like to know your view on the Mark endings.

No, not really.

The books you referring to are known as the apochrypha. They are collections of Jewish writings, not Christian writings. And they were never part of the Hebrew bible. That is why Protestants do not include them. The reason that Catholics do is that they were other valued, but not sacred writings, kept with the scrolls of the Old Testament by the early church, and when the collection was finally put into book form, they added them in the book also, but they were never considered of equal wait with scripture. But the Catholic church loves tradition and they are definitely part of the tradition of the church. However, Catholics and Protestants view their canonicity pretty much the same, meaning they are not canonical.

Grace are you sure? If I were to ask a catholic whether their Bible was all God inspired, holding their version, that they would say 'Well 66 books, but the others are just there because of tradition and stuff, they aint on the same level'?


I'd also like to say there seems to be alot of unnecesary posts, stuff like 'Yea they a doing shirk' or 'Ill post in abit' or 'Erm yea what ever'

In this section the threads tend to have a flow, commenting when not neccesary tends to disturb that and also makes those who do it look childish.

I hope that we all try our best to be civilised.

Your Main Man, :thumbs_up

Eesa.

 

[mkh4JC]

Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever” -- therefore the Lord God sent him out of the Garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the Garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.



This use of the majestic plural in Genesis 3:22-24 is what is intended by the NIV Study Bible’s annotation on Genesis 1:26 (above). At the end of its comment on this verse, the NIV Study Bible provides a number of Bible sources from the Jewish scriptures to support its position that “God speaks as the Creator-king, announcing His crowning work to the members of His heavenly court.” The verses cited are: Genesis 3:22, 11:7, Isaiah 6:8, I Kings 22:19-23, Job 15:8, and Jeremiah 23:18. These verses convey to the attentive Bible reader that the heavenly abode of the Creator is filled with the ministering angels who attend the Almighty and to whom He repeatedly refers when using the plural pronoun “Us.”

While this is interesting and does put forth a notion that I hadn't actually considered, what about this verse:

Genesis 1:26 - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our like-ness:

So therefore if we are made in the image of God and you believe in the Bible then you could come to this conclusion: God=The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit, humans=the spirit, the soul, and the body.

 

[Eesa Abdullah]

While this is interesting and does put forth a notion that I hadn't actually considered, what about this verse:

Genesis 1:26 - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our like-ness:

So therefore if we are made in the image of God and you believe in the Bible then you could come to this conclusion:

God=The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit, humans=the spirit, the soul, and the body.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Greetings Fedos,

This is the first part to a long post. I will not have a sufficient amount of time, but I will try to include as much as possible in the 2 hours I have. Godwilling.

Let us take a look at 8 ways that this verse can be interpreted:

1. When man was created in God’s image, he was created with a similar physical appearance.

2. The image of God is the unique ability of man to have a relationship with God.

3. The image of God refers to His triune nature. Thus, man is a triune being, consisting of body, soul, and spirit.

4. The image is to be distinguished from likeness. This view states that the image refers to natural qualities in man that serve to make him like God. Among these qualities are: reason and personality. Likeness, on the other hand, refers to qualities of a more ethical nature that are granted to the redeemed. Those that hold to this view generally view the likeness as having been lost subsequent to the fall and regained when one is redeemed (Hoekema citing Iranaeus, 33-34). Calvin, though he does not share this view, refers to these qualities as “gratuitous gifts (Calvin).”

5. This view teaches that a man is God’s representative on the earth due to being made in the image of God.

6. The image is connected to the phrase “let them have dominion.” Man is stated to be God’s vice-regent, ruler on the earth. This view is primarily an expansion of the God’s representative view.

7. The image of God consists of what one might call the near perfection of the mind and body. Luther called it “the most excellent and precious gift.” He reported that it consisted of an uncorrupt intellect, a perfect memory, and upright will, a good conscience, no fear of death, and great physical strength. Proponents of this view often insist that its fullest extent is unknowable by modern man because the image was lost or greatly damaged by the Fall, and that the image would begin to be restored by means of the Gospel, and be completed at Christ’s coming (Luther, 32).

8. The image of God in man refers to his mental, moral and spiritual faculties.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I understand how you can think that we are (literally) made in the image of God Almighty. However, in what image was God speaking of when HE said that? That is the question and it could be full of ambiguities, as I have shown above if we use our limited human mind. However, let us cross-reference the verses and see what the Bible itself has to say about this matter.

Let’s take a look at the verse that you put forth: Genesis 1:26 , first from the Jewish rendering then of course the Christian rendering:

And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth." (Judaica Press Tanach)

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." (NIV)

Also, let’s take a look at the subsequent verse in Genesis 11:7

“Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." (NIV)

Now in these verses we see that there is a plural used. Now, we know that this plural refers to God, but the more profound question is whether it is used for God (singularly), God (with the trinitarian connotation), or is God consorting with HIS heavenly hosts: the angels?

The assumption that "Let us make man in our image" (Genesis 1:26) refers to the plurality of God is negated by the subsequent verse, which relates the creation of man to a singular God, "And God created man in His image" (Genesis 1:27).

In this verse the Hebrew verb "created" appears in the singular form. If "let us make man" indicates a numerical plurality, it would be followed in the next verse by, "And they created man in their image."

Obviously, the plural form is used in the same way as in the divine name Elohim, to indicate the all-inclusiveness of God's attributes of authority and power, the plurality of majesty. It is customary for one in authority to speak of himself as if he were a plurality. Hence, Absalom said to Ahithophel, "Give your counsel what we shall do" (2 Samuel 16:20). The context shows that he was seeking advice for himself' yet he refers to himself as "we" (see also Ezra 4:16-19).

Now as far as the concept “image” goes, take a look at these verses from Genesis

“When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.” (5:3)

Now we can see that the above verse refers to Adam (as) begetting his son Seth. Likeness, here refers to physical attributes.

"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” (9:6)

“God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” (1:27)

Are we to look at this verse and take it literally and deduce that God Almighty is both male and female? The word ‘image’ can mean something literal or it can mean something symbolic. The word image can be used metaphorically.

John 4:24 states, “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

Now, the word spirit can be used many different ways as well, but in keeping with the topic, I would not say that a living, breathing human being is a spirit per se, but it could be interpreted that way. In reference to God Almighty the spirit is incorporeal. No one has ever seen God Almighty. However, in accordance with trinitarian thought, God the Father has never been seen, but God the Son has. So in that sense, most of the Christians I speak with uphold the fact that God has been seen in the past.

These are verses are from a Bible Study booklet I was given by a friend of mine: The square brackets are not mine.

“For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, [the Father] but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, [Jesus/Yashua] has made him known. “( John 1:17-18, NIV)

" No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. " ( John 6:46, NIV)

“This is love: not that we loved God, [the Father] but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God [the Father]; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us. We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit." ( 1 John 4:10-13, NIV)

[The speaker is God who was born as Jesus/Yashua.] "And the LORD said, "I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." Then the LORD said, "There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen." ( Exodus 33:19-23, NIV)

The second group of scriptures describes instances of people seeing God, the Son:

In His original state, before He was born as a man, the face of YHWH, or I AM, could not be seen by a human being because it would kill that person. Why that is true the Bible does not specify, although the Apostle Paul later commented on the radiance coming from Moses’ face after this encounter in II Corinthians 3:7-13, which refers to the incident cited in Exodus 34:29-35. The exposure that Moses had to seeing God’s back caused his face to glow so brilliantly that it scared the Israelites. Moses had to resort to wearing a veil so they would not be too frightened to listen to what he was saying.

[The "man" who wrestled with Jacob was the God who was born as Jesus/Yashua, "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob." (See Exodus 3:15)] So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob's hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. Then the man said, "Let me go, for it is daybreak." But Jacob replied, "I will not let you go unless you bless me." The man asked him, "What is your name?" "Jacob," he answered. Then the man said, "Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome." Jacob said, "Please tell me your name." But he replied, "Why do you ask my name?" Then he blessed him there. So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared." “( Genesis 32:24-30, NIV)

[This passage also refers — not to God, the Father — but to "I AM"/Jesus/Yashua.] The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks with his friend. Then Moses would return to the camp, but his young aide Joshua son of Nun did not leave the tent. (Exodus 33:11, NIV)
[This is a "vision" and so may not be directly applicable to this discussion, but even so, it still refers to "I AM"/Jesus/Yashua, because we are told that no man has seen God, the Father.] "In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord seated on a throne, high and exalted, and the train of his robe filled the temple." ( Isaiah 6:1, NIV)

[The whole book of Job is a metaphor, or a "parable” and also may not be applicable to this discussion, but, again, we know that it refers to "I AM"/Jesus/Yashua, because no man has seen the Father.] "Then Job replied to the LORD: "I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted. [You asked,] `Who is this that obscures my counsel without knowledge?' Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know. ["You said,] `Listen now and I will speak; I will question you, and you shall answer me.' My ears had heard of you but now my eyes have seen you."" (Job 42:1-5, NIV)

I will not be able to elaborate on all of those verses at this time, but I can say that this is totally incorrect. Knowing full well how the Bible uses symbolism and metaphoric statements and to take one explicit verse and interpret it in the light of an implicit verse is as incorrect method of interpretation. Out of the numerous singular pronouns, one cannot apprehend that God is one and one alone? Indivisible and incorporeal?

From Judaica Press Tanach

"Son of man, say to the prince of Tyre: So said the Lord God: Because your heart is proud, and you said, 'I am a god, I have sat in a seat of God, in the heart of the seas,' but you are a man and not a god, yet you have made your heart like the heart of God. [Ezekiel 28:2]

“I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not a man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not enter into the city.” [Hosea 11:9]

“God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the Son of Man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? Or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?” [Numbers 23:19]

Godwilling, I will finish this up at a later time. I will post more information about this topic later. I will be back in a week or two.
Peace

waAllaahualim

 

[Eesa Abdullah]

So therefore if we are made in the image of God and you believe in the Bible then you could come to this conclusion: God=The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit, humans=the spirit, the soul, and the body.

Okay, in reference to this last comment.

If we have God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit and we take away God the Father what would we be left with? Would the other two still remain the same as they do when God the Father is a part?

Let us take a look at an egg and it has what? The shell, the egg white, and the yolk. Now, if we take away any part of this egg, will it still be considered an egg? No it would not.

Another example, let us take a look at the water and the 3 forms it could take.

Water can solidify, it can flow, or it can evaporate. Once water evaporates it is no longer water. Is that the same as saying if any parts of the trinitarian Godhead is separated from one another the remnant is not God?

Sorry I had to be brief, but it is a profound metaphor you put forward and I am in a hurry.
Peace.

WaAllaahualim

 

[Eesa Abdullah]

The most perfect saying to what God is and what HE is not:


'Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
And there is none like unto Him.'

Surah al Ikhlas

 

[Grace Seeker]

Water can solidify, it can flow, or it can evaporate. Once water evaporates it is no longer water. Is that the same as saying if any parts of the trinitarian Godhead is separated from one another the remnant is not God?

First when water evaporates it is water vapor and still 100% water. It just isn't liquid. That is sort of the point of the water analogy.

Beyond that, you are playing with analogies using created objects to try to explain the creator God. Nothing on earth will ever be fully analogous with God or it would be God itself. Neither of us believes that it possible, that is why all analogies will break down. That doesn't meant that God is or isn't Triune, just that analogies for God will all come up short. So, it is unwise to try to make them say something other than for which they were designed to illustrate.


Nonetheless, when you get ready to talk about Christ's dual natures in all of this, let me know, I've got a new analogy for you that I've never seen before.

 

[mkh4JC]

While this is interesting and does put forth a notion that I hadn't actually considered, what about this verse:

Genesis 1:26 - And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our like-ness:

So therefore if we are made in the image of God and you believe in the Bible then you could come to this conclusion:

God=The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit, humans=the spirit, the soul, and the body.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Greetings Fedos,

This is the first part to a long post. I will not have a sufficient amount of time, but I will try to include as much as possible in the 2 hours I have. Godwilling.

Let us take a look at 8 ways that this verse can be interpreted:

1. When man was created in God’s image, he was created with a similar physical appearance.

2. The image of God is the unique ability of man to have a relationship with God.

3. The image of God refers to His triune nature. Thus, man is a triune being, consisting of body, soul, and spirit.

4. The image is to be distinguished from likeness. This view states that the image refers to natural qualities in man that serve to make him like God. Among these qualities are: reason and personality. Likeness, on the other hand, refers to qualities of a more ethical nature that are granted to the redeemed. Those that hold to this view generally view the likeness as having been lost subsequent to the fall and regained when one is redeemed (Hoekema citing Iranaeus, 33-34). Calvin, though he does not share this view, refers to these qualities as “gratuitous gifts (Calvin).”

5. This view teaches that a man is God’s representative on the earth due to being made in the image of God.

6. The image is connected to the phrase “let them have dominion.” Man is stated to be God’s vice-regent, ruler on the earth. This view is primarily an expansion of the God’s representative view.

7. The image of God consists of what one might call the near perfection of the mind and body. Luther called it “the most excellent and precious gift.” He reported that it consisted of an uncorrupt intellect, a perfect memory, and upright will, a good conscience, no fear of death, and great physical strength. Proponents of this view often insist that its fullest extent is unknowable by modern man because the image was lost or greatly damaged by the Fall, and that the image would begin to be restored by means of the Gospel, and be completed at Christ’s coming (Luther, 32).

8. The image of God in man refers to his mental, moral and spiritual faculties.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I understand how you can think that we are (literally) made in the image of God Almighty. However, in what image was God speaking of when HE said that? That is the question and it could be full of ambiguities, as I have shown above if we use our limited human mind. However, let us cross-reference the verses and see what the Bible itself has to say about this matter.

I agree, it could be taken a whole host of ways. But when the Bible says that we are made in God's 'image and like-ness' I would imagine that it would be talking about more than just one aspect of God.

Let’s take a look at the verse that you put forth: Genesis 1:26 , first from the Jewish rendering then of course the Christian rendering:

And God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and they shall rule over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the heaven and over the animals and over all the earth and over all the creeping things that creep upon the earth." (Judaica Press Tanach)

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." (NIV)

Also, let’s take a look at the subsequent verse in Genesis 11:7

“Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other." (NIV)

Now in these verses we see that there is a plural used. Now, we know that this plural refers to God, but the more profound question is whether it is used for God (singularly), God (with the trinitarian connotation), or is God consorting with HIS heavenly hosts: the angels?

Even though I didn't mention it in my previous post, I agree with your assessment in another post you made about concerning the usage of 'us' here: Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" (Isaiah 6:8). Mainly, because this was put forth before on I believe Christian programming that I have seen. But let's look at these few verses:

Genesis 11: 6-8 'And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.'

So why would God here need angels to confound the language of the people? If all the people spoke the same language, and God confounded it here, so that there are many languages, why would he need the assistance of angels to accomplish this? Not saying that God doesn't use angels to do things, but here it seems quite superfluous to assume that he used a whole host of angels to accomplish this particular task. How would angels accomplish this task in the first place?

 

[Grace Seeker]

I understand how you can think that we are (literally) made in the image of God Almighty. However, in what image was God speaking of when HE said that? That is the question and it could be full of ambiguities, as I have shown above if we use our limited human mind. However, let us cross-reference the verses and see what the Bible itself has to say about this matter.

I have a very simple answer to what "image" means in this verse, and indeed throughout the Bible. Once or twice I think you came close to it, but I don't think you are there yet. But, you also said you are not done, so I will wait and see what develops.

 

[Eesa Abdullah]

Greetings,

Yes, Grace seeker. Water vapor is the gas phase of water. And Any analogy used to explain the nature of God will come up short, so I do not see the reason behind trying to explain it by means of His (Almighty Gods' creation)

"there is none like unto Him"

Surah Ikhlaas verse 4

PS also grace seeker, please elaborate on your position to what ‘image’ means contextually in this verse?



Greetings Fedos,

You said, "Even though I didn't mention it in my previous post, I agree with your assessment in another post you made about concerning the usage of 'us' here: Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" (Isaiah 6:8). Mainly, because this was put forth before on I believe Christian programming that I have seen. But let's look at these few verses:

Genesis 11: 6-8 'And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.'

So why would God here need angels to confound the language of the people? If all the people spoke the same language, and God confounded it here, so that there are many languages, why would he need the assistance of angels to accomplish this? Not saying that God doesn't use angels to do things, but here it seems quite superfluous to assume that he used a whole host of angels to accomplish this particular task. How would angels accomplish this task in the first place?"

Ok, I see you are speaking of the tower of Babel when all the people devised to construct a tower to reach the Heavens. However, let me address the plural pronoun 'us'.

The Islamic belief is that the use of the 'plural' is used as a plural of majesty for God. Let me elaborate:

It does not indicate plural beings; rather it displays the highest position in the language. English, Persian, Hebrew, Arabic and many languages provide for the usage of "We" for the royal figure. It is helpful to note the same dignity is given to the person being spoken to in English. We say to someone, "You ARE my friend." Yet the person is only one person standing there. Why did we say "ARE" instead of "IS"? The noun "you" is singular and should therefore be associated with a singular verb for the state of being, yet we say, "are." The same is true for the speaker when referring to himself or herself. We say, "I am" and this is also in the royal plural, instead of saying, "I is."

God does what He wills and He does what He pleases. If He wills angels to do something, it will be done. The verses I posted in my initial position as far as the Bible is concerned explains that the angels were around and did do what God Almighty told them to do.